We left off with Mottley.The language “arising under” that we find in
the Constitution and in the statute can have different meanings.In particular, we read the “Well-Pleaded
Complaint Rule” into the statute.

All
that this means is that the Mottleys tried to file
their case in federal court under federal question subject matter jurisdiction.The court resolves the issue, but it goes to
the Supreme Court which says that the lower court that heard the case had no jurisdiction
to hear it in the first place.Then the Mottleys go to Kentucky state court and eventually
get appealed up to the Supreme Court again, where they lose on the merits.This is not very efficient.

This
is the oldest form of federal subject matter jurisdiction.It was included in the 1789 Judicial Act that
actually established the lower federal courts.The roots of diversity jurisdiction are old and deep, though it is one
of the most controversial subjects the federal courts deal with.

The
Mottleys were in Kentucky.Let’s say the railroad was incorporated in New York.We think that the Mottleys
could look to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, to
try to get their case properly into federal court.

We
have citizens from different states. We
have a controversy that exceeds $75,000 in value.We also have the problem of corporate
citizenship.Where does the company
live?

Do
we have $75,000 at issue?Say the Mottleys
were injured today.Say they got free
airfare on American Airlines for life.Does this necessarily exceed $75,000?Not exactly.What are we going to do?We could gather some evidence for how much
this is worth.

The
simple matter is that your petition will simply allege that the matter
in controversy is greater than $75,000.Make the defendants argue against jurisdiction.Your claim will be accepted on its face
unless the complaint plainly contradicts this.

What
about the “citizens of different States” requirement?The Mottleys live
in Kentucky.The
corporation can be said to be a citizen of New York as well as wherever its
principal place of business is.Unfortunately, it turns out that the railroad is a citizen of Kentucky.We are foreclosed from going the “diversity
route” on the facts of Mottley: our corporate citizen “lives” in Kentucky as well.

Jean-Paul
Mas is a citizen of France.His wife, Judy, is a citizen of Mississippi.They are both grad students at LSU.They get married in Mississippi.They go back to LSU and get an apartment from
“Peeping Tom” Perry.He has installed
two-way mirrors in the apartment.They
find out and they sue him.Perry
challenges subject matter jurisdiction on appeal.

Let’s
say only Jean-Paul sued Perry.It’s “France v. Louisiana”.Is this case okay under diversity
jurisdiction?We go to § 1332(a), and
zero in on sub-section (2), which allows jurisdiction when you have a “citizen
of a State” and a “citizen of a foreign state”.

Notice
that § 1332(a)
tells us that an alien who has been admitted as a permanent resident is
considered a citizen of the state where they are domiciled.

So
if we have Jean-Paul v. Perry, we have a good lawsuit that can be heard in federal
court.Let’s add Judy.What’s wrong with that?

The
court says there is some confusion over her citizenship.She might be a citizen of France because her husband is a
citizen of France.She might also be a citizen of Louisiana or Mississippi.The court gives us reasons why some of these
will work and some of them won’t.

Why
does it matter where she’s from?If she’s
from Louisiana, then we don’t have diversity jurisdiction.Why not?You wouldn’t have complete diversity of the parties.There’s a rule!It’s called…

The
Rule of Complete Diversity

No
party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other
side.

The
Rule of Complete Diversity is to diversity jurisdiction as the Well-Pleaded
Complaint Rule is to federal question jurisdiction.It is a rule that comes from the
interpretation of the relevant federal law (§ 1332) rather than from the Constitution.

This
rule comes from the case of Strawbridge v. Curtis.Yeazell doesn’t make us read this dumb,
tedious case.

This
is important, because if this rule is statutory rather than constitutional,
that means that Congress can provide jurisdiction in the federal courts for
something less than complete diversity.They have done so!They passed
the Federal Interpleader Act, which only requires “minimal
diversity”, meaning diversity between at least two of the claimants.Remember that all the Constitution says is “citizens
of different States”.This has been
interpreted differently constitutionally than it has been interpreted through
the statute.

What
could Congress do if it wanted?It could
allow federal jurisdiction over cases with minimal diversity.Fairman says that’s probably the opposite
direction from the way federal judges want to see this develop.

It
makes a huge difference whether Judy is from Louisiana or not.If she is, the decision of the court will be
vacated.As long as she is a citizen of
someplace else, the judgment will stand.

How
do we figure out her citizenship?The court says that we
determine citizenship by determining domicile.

What’s
wrong with Louisiana? Where is Judy actually living?She’s in Park Ridge, Illinois.She’s not in Louisiana.That doesn’t mean that we can stop
there.What do we know about Judy that
tells us that even if she were living in Louisiana, she still would not be a
citizen of Louisiana?She’s a student!She’s going to be at LSU for a set period of
time!Most grad students graduate and go
out into the world, someplace else.You
don’t know where exactly.So, Louisiana’s gone.

What
about France?The court states the doctrine that “wives take the
citizenship of their husbands”.The court
mentions that if she were a citizen of France, she would be neither a
citizen of any state nor an alien and therefore, she would be SOL[1].Furthermore, by statute, she is not deemed to
have lost her U.S. citizenship by virtue of
marrying a foreigner.

What
about Mississippi?Could we consider Judy to be a citizen of Mississippi?How does that make sense?It’s sort of like the Sherlock Holmes
approach.Once you’ve eliminated all
other possibilities, then what remains—no matter how ridiculous—must be the
answer.Is this lawsuit going to be okay
for diversity jurisdiction?Sure!!!

In Gordon, the court weighed certain factors for
citizenship in Pennsylvania versus factors for citizenship
in Idaho.The court
finds that the college student is a citizen of the “college town” rather than
the “home town”.How do you distinguish
these cases?Why didn’t the Fifth
Circuit have to follow Gordon?Well, they are in different circuits, so the
Fifth Circuit doesn’t care what goes on in district court in Pennsylvania.But why would the test come out differently?

Could
the court be “peeking” at the merits?In
both cases, the courts made decisions that allow plaintiffs to go forward with
lawsuits when the alternative was no alternative at all due to statute of
limitations. Also, the plaintiffs in
both cases were highly sympathetic.

There
are different facts in the two cases, and an inquiry into domicile is
essentially a factual inquiry.

Subject
matter jurisdiction is a “time bomb” inside your litigation!

Tomorrow,
we will conclude by looking at the statute a little more.Then we will get into a complicated issue in diversity
jurisdiction that the Circuits are split on when we look at Saadeh.